The difference between a 4.2ghz and 4.5ghz i5 6600k is minimal, focusing mainly on performance gains.
The difference between a 4.2ghz and 4.5ghz i5 6600k is minimal, focusing mainly on performance gains.
Hello everyone, do you notice any variation when increasing your CPU's clock speed from 4.2ghz to 4.5ghz in actual use? If so, what factors influence that change? Please share your insights.
I notice CPU (PECI) which represents a single temperature, likely the average of all four core temperatures, not the individual ones. That reading seems fine.
If you're confident you can achieve higher performance without excessive heat and without requiring unusual voltage levels, then it's worth trying.
However, it's up to the user to decide how much they want to push the system further.
It really depends on the software you're using. For games, the answer is generally no—especially on your CPU, as any overclocking will be wasted. Scientific programs, video editing, and content creation tools might see a slight boost, but with a 300MHz setting, the improvement will be minimal, around 7%. In reality, you're likely to notice only a small change, possibly none at all, unless the application is heavily taxing the CPU.
For gaming purposes, I anticipate your GPU reaching its maximum capacity before the CPU even hits stock speeds, unless you're pushing extremely high frame rates.
In most situations individuals who enjoy pushing their systems beyond limits do so simply because they like it. It's not usually done to enhance performance; rather, it's a personal challenge. During Core 2 days, some users might achieve a 33 to 50% boost, which is noticeable. That significant jump is easy to notice. For reaching 4.7GHz, it represents an 11% increase over 4.2GHz, and you might perceive the gains in non-gaming applications, though this depends on the software. If you're motivated by the thrill and have confidence in your hardware, go ahead—just make sure your cooling is solid and you're lucky with the chips.
techgeek:
In most situations those who enjoy pushing their systems beyond normal limits do so simply because they like it. It's not usually done to enhance performance; it's more about the challenge itself. On Core 2 days, you might achieve a 33 to 50% boost in some scenarios, which is noticeable. That significant jump is easy to notice. For reaching 4.7GHz, it's an 11% increase over 4.2GHz—this improvement can be felt in non-gaming applications, though it depends on the software. If you're doing it just for the thrill and you manage thermal issues and luck with the hardware, go ahead. However, if your goal is strictly to boost computing speed, I wouldn't bother. I find it enjoyable, but I no longer stress-test for stability except in specific cases like encoding with x264. I also appreciate using Cinema4D; if that program shows good results, it's acceptable. But I just want to confirm whether running such a high Vcore safely for regular use and maintaining a fixed Vcore is feasible.
Well 1.320V might be a bit too high for continuous overclocking. What cooling solution are you using? Also, how are your temperatures when you're running at full capacity. If I had your setup, I'd aim to keep the Vcore at or below 1.3V. A fixed Vcore works fine, but it won't lower the core voltage when the CPU isn't busy, which means your processor might run a bit hotter than usual. I'm not sure what other settings are available on Skylake and Z170 boards. I recall Haswell offered fixed, manual, offset, and adaptive options. Both offset and adaptive let the CPU reduce Vcore during idle times, making them suitable for regular workloads. However, using AVX with offset or adaptive would add an extra .1V to Vcore beyond the standard setting at full load, which could lead to higher temperatures and potentially affect the CPU's lifespan. Therefore, under AVX usage, a fixed configuration was preferable.
techgeek:
The 1.320V reading might be too high for continuous overclocking. Are you using any cooling solution for your CPU? How are the temperatures when you're running at full capacity?
If I had your setup, I'd aim to keep the Vcore at or below 1.3V. A fixed Vcore is fine, but it won't lower the core voltage when the CPU isn't busy, which means the CPU might run a bit hotter than usual. I'm not sure what other settings are available on Skylake and Z170 boards. I recall Haswell offered fixed, manual, offset, and adaptive modes. Both offset and adaptive let the CPU reduce Vcore during idle times, making them better for regular loads—but they could cause problems when AVX is enabled. Using AVX with offset or adaptive would add an extra .1V to Vcore beyond the standard setting at full load, which would likely raise temperatures and affect long-term health. Under AVX conditions, fixed mode performed better.
In BIOS it's not exactly 1.320V, but a 1.3V setting is configured, and during stress tests it sometimes reached 1.320V after about 35 minutes of running with 64MB RAM and 79°C readings.
I ran a x264 benchmark and saw this result: http://imgur.com/AqndGkq